Subject: MMOW's Conflict of Interest by Billy Hileman
From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:31:41 EDT

Permission is granted to forward, post, re-print, and publish the following 
article in its entirety and with attribution. Please notify Planet Q via 
e-mail ([email-masked]) if you publish this article.

**************************************

MMOW's Conflict of Interest
Y2K event continues to place profit before process

by Billy Hileman
©Planet Q

    On August 5, 1999 Robin Tyler, executive producer of the Millennium March 
on Washington (MMOW), released an article that sets out to correct `The 
libelous misinformation and untruths in Billy Heilman's (sic) last press 
release.' Robin seems to be determined to discredit me and thus the points of 
my editorial, `Astroturf Organizing.' Whatever you think of me, the content 
of my article stands on its own merit.
    It seems like a small point " what's the deal with the hotel rooms? 
However, the hotel issue is central to how this event was put together.
    Robin contends that she now has only one room booked for the weekend of 
the MMOW. Fine.
    The real issue is described by the following facts: a) thousands of hotel 
rooms were booked before the date of the MMOW was announced on April 30, 
1998; b) very early in 1998, Robin talked with Ray Hill of Houston, Texas 
(and national co-chair of the 1979 MOW) about making money off of hotel 
rooms. Recently Hill said, `Her new spin makes it all seem like part of the 
MOW plan but that was not her explanation in the early conversation. It was 
more like: If the march has financial problems, she could donate some of the 
money back to help cover them'; c) Robin admits she booked many rooms. `As a 
tour operator, I knew to call and secure these rooms,' Tyler told OutSmart, a 
Houston lgbt paper; d) the Ad Hoc committee has requested information about 
the travel and accommodations agreements brokered by Robin and the MMOW. The 
board has refused to divulge any of the important details; e) MMOW, Inc. did 
not exist until July 1998"months after the date was announced and rooms were 
booked; f) Robin Tyler was named `executive producer' in February 1998. After 
a one-week `national recruitment process' at the end of June 1998, Robin 
Tyler was again named executive producer. All of this should make everyone 
question, `What is going on here?'
    It may be true that all the hotel rooms are now in the name of the 
Millennium March, but it was not always that way. Robin Tyler held some very 
powerful financial cards, i.e., hotel rooms, in her hand during the inception 
of the proposed event. Her intent may have been to prevent hotels from 
ripping off people who attend the MMOW. However, it still was highly 
irresponsible for HRC and MCC, the original sponsors of the MMOW, to allow a 
process that mimicked `insider trading' to be the organizing basis for a 
civil rights march. Recent information about AIDS Rides show that only a 
small fraction of money raised went to help people with HIV/AIDS. Promoters 
made off with huge profits. Is the MMOW" an organization that has not 
released a financial statement"above financial scrutiny? (I asked about a 
financial statement in Chicago. Associate producer Ginny Foat said they had 
one for 1998 and she would mail it to me. It hasn't arrived.)
    Robin implies that organizing previous marches were not democratic. No 
organizing structure that aspires to speak for an entire community can ever 
be perfect. However, the three previous marches were committed to democratic 
principles. The MMOW is not. In the past community activists held national 
meetings before calling for the march. MMOW did not.
    In March of 1991 the executive directors of NGLTF and HRCF, Urvashi Vaid 
and Tim McFeeley organized a meeting in Washington, D.C. for activists to 
discuss a possible third march on Washington. Minneapolis City Councilmember 
Brian Coyle had pushed the idea at the 1990 Creating Change Conference. 
During the March `91 meeting, and a second national meeting in May, dozens of 
proposals and concerns were discussed by hundreds of activists.
    Proposals for marches in 1992 and 1993 were discussed. Bi-annual MOWs 
with a permanent committee; 52 regional marches: states, DC and Puerto Rico; 
and a MOW before every presidential election were all proposed. Stonewall 25 
organizers pleaded that no national action take place before 1994. A call for 
inclusion of youth in the organizing was made and a request to be aware of 
the dates of the many women's music festivals was voiced. Native American 
gays and lesbians explained that they could not participate in the fall of 
1992 - the 500th anniversary of the survival of indigenous cultures. And that 
is a very small sample.
    This was not done for the MMOW. It was decided by a small group, 
including Robin Tyler, Elizabeth Birch, and Troy Perry that there would be a 
national mobilization of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender 
communities on April 30, 2000 and it would be called the Millennium March on 
Washington for Equality. The discussion of whether to march or not and what a 
march would compete with was never on the table. It was a done deal.
    Robin says past national meetings were not representative of the country. 
For the 93 MOW virtually everything that could be done was done to assure 
representation. The organizing body was not simply a board of directors. It 
was made of a national steering committee (NSC) that had 30 national 
organization seats, 15 constituency seats, 4 seats for each of 17 
geographical regions, a 13 member executive committee and a hired national 
organizer. The gender parity and minimum 50% people of color requirement 
applied to the entire 127 member NSC. Regions chose their own representatives 
and did fundraising to send their reps to the NSC meetings. It was not a 
small group of people who could afford to travel to meetings in different 
parts of the country. The 1993 NSC was in place and working 16 months ahead 
of the event. Compare that to a 21 seat self-selecting MMOW board that only 
gets 10 members to its meetings and with less than 9 months to go still can't 
pull together its leadership council.
    The structure of the 1993 MOW was adopted in Chicago in August of 
1991"the third open national meeting that year. Regions had until January of 
1992 to organize and elect their representatives. At the Jan. 1992 NSC 
meeting in Los Angeles only one region sent a delegation that failed to meet 
the gender and racial guidelines. That region was region 4 " So. Calif." and 
Robin Tyler petitioned the Interim Coordinating Committee to waive the gender 
and people of color requirement for region 4 " to no avail.
    The MMOW has not even scratched the surface in trying to set up a truly 
inclusive national organization to represent our communities. Robin Tyler, 
who represents the MMOW board of directors should be more careful about 
bashing the previous democratic efforts. Less than perfect democracy in 1993 
is no excuse for the closed process that has been forced upon us. It's not 
that all national marches must follow the same path. The Ad Hoc Committee 
simply points out that this event has completely abandoned the principles 
that were at the core of the organizing structures of the three previous 
marches.
    At the heart of the MMOW is a secret financial plan presented by Robin to 
HRC and MCC early in 1998. The document driving this event is a private 
contract between Robin Tyler and MMOW, Inc. If it would become clear to 
everyone that the MMOW is a colossal mistake, the reason it would not be 
called off is because of hotel contracts. That is why we are marching on 
Washington. To protect the financial security of people who made a unilateral 
decision to march and are now over a barrel and scrambling to make it look 
like the whole thing was a grass roots effort. That has been true since 
February 1998 and has been the driving force behind the refusal to open the 
discussion on whether to march or not.
    Robin asserts that the theme of `Faith and Family' for the March is a lie 
that continues to be spread solely because it inflames certain segments of 
our community. It is not an idea that originates with the Ad Hoc Committee. 
Themes for the event were reported in a Feb. 6, 1998 Washington Blade article 
about the proposed event. `The vision behind this march will be to keep it 
focused on equal rights,' [HRC spokesperson David Smith, said]. Smith said 
the event will also push themes of Gay families and faith. Therefore, HRC is 
the likely source of this `lie'. Beyond that, Tyler twists concern about this 
non-theme into an anti-religious meaning. Troy Perry himself elaborates on 
how important previous marches have been to MCC.
    In a June 5, 1998 press statement Perry said, `By way of example, the 
UFMCC has found the Marches provide a stellar opportunity to leverage our 
participation. Among the ways we have done this: We have held worship 
services at the Lincoln Memorial at each of the Marches... We conducted the 
largest mass same-sex wedding ever held... We have promoted UFMCC's 
participation through our internal communications to inspire and mobilize our 
members... We have leveraged our participation in the Marches to build 
strategic alliances with other organizations.'
    In 1987 I marched with the `Why Can't Sharon Come Home?' contingent. In 
1993 we worked hard to get the permit for Constitution Avenue for MCC's 
Wedding. It was difficult because another group already had a permit for the 
street. While Troy Perry and I have differing opinions on the MMOW, I still 
have great affection for him. I am so grateful to have played a part in 
making the 1993 Wedding happen " an event where Karen and Sharon were 
together.
    Robin and the MMOW have completely missed the point of concern about the 
non-theme `faith and family.' The issue is: what is displaced when the focus 
is `faith and family?' But, one cannot even ask the question.
    Robin says the MMOW is more democratic because of their platform poll 
that allows all lgbt people to vote. Then she says, `First, this March has a 
very clear and well-defined focus. It is a March for LGBT federal civil 
rights. Billy Heilman (sic) and others of his group have demanded that we 
March on a platform of other issues they think are important.' I have not, 
and the Ad Hoc Committee has not made any demand about the platform. I have 
critiqued the platform poll ballot. Further, this statement exposes the 
opportunity to vote as a sham. It looks like another done deal. `It is a 
March for LGBT federal civil rights.'
    Robin doesn't stop there in making the platform ballot irrelevant. She 
writes, `Like many in our community, I've done lots of marching. I've marched 
for black civil rights, in the anti-war movement, and for the equal rights 
amendment. I've marched for affirmative action, for choice, for farm worker 
rights, and for the rights of other oppressed peoples. Now, I'm marching with 
our community for our LGBT rights.' From this you can list what will and 
won't be in the platform.
    Even more important than the fact Tyler does not seem to be bound by the 
results of the platform poll are the questions, `Who is the poll reaching? 
Who is responding?' There clearly are gender, race, and class issues involved 
in conducting an unscientific poll almost exclusively on the internet. To 
call this `democracy' is absurd.
    Ironically, positive responses to the MMOW, when they occur, are a result 
of the genuine attempt to adhere to democratic principles because positive 
reactions to the MMOW are exclusively the result of the good work done in 
1979, 1987, and 1993. Just take a look at whose video they are using to 
promote this thing.
    In my editorial, `Astroturf Organizing,' I made the following point about 
the lack of reference to race issues in the MMOW platform ballot.
    `In 1987 one of the 7 demands was, `An end to racism in this country and 
Apartheid in South Africa.' In 1993" `We demand an end to racial and ethnic 
discrimination in all forms.'...
    `On April 25, 1993 Ben Chavis, then executive director of the NAACP stood 
on the MOW stage and said, `We have come to make it very clear that our 
nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization ...the NAACP, ...we 
stand with you. And as the NAACP stands with you today, we want you to stand 
with us as we fight against racism in America.'
    `The millennium platform ballot, devoid of any reference to race issues, 
ignores the history of our national MOWs' commitment to deal with racism and 
rejects the NAACP's invitation to stand side-by-side in the fight against 
racism in our country.'
    I personally don't understand why the MMOW would reject Ben Chavis' 
invitation. This choice by the MMOW"to steer clear of the civil rights 
movement"by itself convinces me that the organizers haven't done any analysis 
of the political progression of the past three marches.
    Boldly, the 1993 MOW proclaimed, `It's a Simple Matter of Justice.' The 
event positioned the lgbt movement into the historic civil rights struggle in 
our country. The ability to do so grew out of adherence to democratic 
principles at the core of the organizing structure. This is the important 
legacy of our national mobilizations. If we cannot continue on that path, 
then the choice to abandon it is the most profound reason why our communities 
are not ready to march. It's time for an open process. 

**************************************

Billy Hileman is  the publisher of Pittsburgh's Planet Q newspaper, a member 
of the Ad Hoc Committee for an Open Process and was a National Co-Chair for 
the 1993 March on Washington.

Permission is granted to forward, post, re-print, and publish this article in 
its entirety and with attribution. Please notify Planet Q via e-mail 
([email-masked]) if you publish this article.